JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this appeal, appellants who are the original claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation which is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.117/2006, on 6.3.2008.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary to decide the appeal are as follows :

On 4.6.2006 deceased Sk. Yusuf along with Sk. Abdul and Rajesh were proceeding on scooter bearing No.MH-31-T-4846. At the relevant time offending vehicle tipper bearing No. MTG-7248 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high and excessive speed dashed against the scooter. Due to severe dash, Sk. Yusuf and Sk. Abdul sustained injuries and succumbed to the death on the spot. As per the contention of the claimants the said incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper driver, therefore, offence was registered against the tipper driver vide CR No.39/2006, dated 4.6.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper driver, claimed the compensation.

3. It is further contention of the claimants that the offending vehicle was driven by the respondent No.1 Santosh Ramnarayan Tiwari and owned by respondent No.2 Sandeep Suryakant Chaurasia and validly insured with the respondent No.3 New India Assurance Company Limited on the date of accident. As the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper driver, which is owned by the respondent No.2 and validly insured with the respondent No.3, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants.

4. In response to the notice, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposed the appeal on the ground that there was contributory negligence of the deceased who was riding the scooter and hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned Tribunal recorded the evidence and after hearing both the sides granted compensation to the appellants of Rs.1,79,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

6. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal original claimants preferred this appeal for enhancement on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record that deceased was agriculturist as well as running the milk business and earning Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- from agriculture yearly and also getting income from the milk business as deceased was owner of 20 buffalos and 20 cows. The appeal is further filed on the ground that the Presiding Officer had not considered other benefits which are to be awarded to the claimants. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma as well as in Pranay Sethi and claimed enhanced compensation.

7. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bharat D. Vora for the appellants and learned Advocate Ms. Anita Mategaovkar for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharat Vora for the appellants submitted that the appellant No.1 has adduced her evidence and she specifically deposed before the Court that now she is staying at the mercy of her parents as her in-laws had not allowed her to run the agriculture operations in the agriculture field. She further deposed that her husband who was doing agriculture operations in a agriculture field owned by the family admeasuring 5 acres and drawing income of Rs.70,000/- to 75,000/-per year. He was also doing milk business as family had owned 20 buffalos and 20 cows and thus he was earning Rs.250/-per day from the milk business. Her evidence further shows that after the death of her husband her mother-in-law and brother-in-law are cultivating the land of her husband and they have also looking after cows and buffalos. She had not received any income from the said agriculture land as well as